Daniel Pipes: Region not ripe for democracy

The Australian ^ | 1/30/2006 | Daniel Pipes

[dk/coro]

I totally disagree relative to the potential for democracy in the Hamas controlled territories.

You might wish to pull up the HAMAS 1987 Covenant and study it closely. The MB fingerprints of decades-long terrorism in the name of Allah is all over the document.

Not a prayer, mate !!!

[WOSG]

"* Defeat radical Islam: Only when Muslims see that this is a route doomed to failure will they be open to alternatives."

Good point.

However, it is only through democracy that radical Islam can be shown to *be* a failure while giving Arab people a way out.

[fallujah-nuker]

Daniel Pipes: Region not ripe for democracy.

Title ammended: Re(li)gion (of Peace) not ripe for democracy.

[Dark Skies]

However, it is only through democracy that radical Islam can be shown to *be* a failure while giving Arab people a way out.

I'll need to chew on that one for a while.

[WOSG]

Look at it this way: Hamas had no accountability, they were just a terror group. Now they are accountable.
:et the Palestinians feel the consequences of alinging with Hamas... no aid, tough line on negotiations. Let's see how they do.

Radical Islam is a failed ideology, and Arabs will have to learn it the hard way.

[GeorgefromGeorgia]

I agree, Excellent.

I particularly like this statement:

"Defeat radical Islam: Only when Muslims see that this is a route doomed to failure will they be open to alternatives."

Defeat=kill them

[D Rider]

Our enemy is not radical islam but just plain islam (as practiced by devout muslim).

Islam must first be uprooted.

Clearly, you're right. And the first stage of defining this truth, is institutionaling democracy in as much of the Islamic world as possible.

[Stand W]

"Defeat radical Islam: Only when Muslims see that this is a route doomed to failure will they be open to alternatives.

I disagree with this in that IMO islam is itself radical. This is tantamount to getting Christians to adopt a lukewarm faith without every wishing to become devout."

I couldn't agree more. The problem is islam itself.

However, consider this: let's say Democracy produces Islamist governments in egypt, Saudi Arabia, lebanon, etc. How long can Western governments continue to avert their eyes from these muslim governments avowed goals of global jihad against the west? Would we not then have to sit up and become more diligent or at least to acknowledge that this murderous ideology well and truly exists in a significant portion of the muslim world?

Remember: OBL preaching jihad against unbelievers is more orthodox and true to the koran and hadith than are the so called "moderate" muslims who claim that islam can be reformed. Islam can never be peacful.

[ValenB4]

Not only did Japan & Germany already have democratization underway, but more importantly, they had had ingrained in their cultures the ideas of contract law & property rights -the two ideas that make liberty, economic growth, and material progress possible.

These ideas are much more important than democracy. This is evident by the fact that the most successful, peaceful, and tolerant Muslim countries are monarchies with informed leaders implementing pro-growth policies - the UAE (especially Dubai), Qatar, and Bahrain. Turkey is also moving in the right direction not because of democracy, but because it is voluntarily implementing these ideas and changing its culture.

Where these ideas do not exist, mostly outside of Europe and North America, liberty cannot exist. The political economist Richard Maybury calls these areas Chaostan, where the choices for a society are between tyranny and chaos. The neocons do not understand Chaoston. But their ignorance shouldn't be surprising, as they are the intellectual heirs to Trotsky.

[hinckley buzzard]

I've maintained for some time that peace requires first a decisive military defeat and crushing of the pre-existing order. So I agree with Pipes on this. As for the impact of democracy, we have to wait and see. The German precedent is ambiguous, because once Hitler was elevated to power they never had another election. The postwar examples of defeated Japan and Germany make eminent sense to me, and the challenge is to see if the nascent democracies can survive to hold another election without having first been crushed.

This will be the acid test, if they can last long enough and if their new governments will submit to the ballot with the loss of power at stake. If so, my bet is that the electorates will want moderation and seek to improve their domestic lives.

The likely alternative is that some or all of these states will have the "one man, one vote, one time" experience, and we will be back where we started a couple years ago.

[Dark Skies]

The German precedent is ambiguous, because once Hitler was elevated to power they never had another election.

Yep, and also because Germany was so dispirited when Uncle Wolfie arrived on the scene.

[wouldntbprudent]

I agree with your thoughtful reply. Fundamental Islam is the problem. However, it seems to me that this makes it easier, not harder to root it out, even if it means the destruction of the Palestinians.

If they truly are a people committed to terrorism through fundamental Islam, and they have elected a government to carry out their philosophy, then they must be defeated and destroyed.

The hatred is passed down from generation to generation in some of these peoples. To stop that cycle, which leads to terrorism, it seems the generations must be interrupted. Harsh, but what other option have they presented.

[sgtyork]

Japan was an Empire not a democracy.

[Dark Skies]

However, it seems to me that this makes it easier, not harder to root it out, even if it means the destruction of the Palestinians.

Thx for your response.

The thing that keeps me awake at night is that most muslims are muslims because of an accident of birth (or a foolish decision later in life).

There is no doubt that islam itself is EVIL...but muslims are the last to know.

What do we do? I wish I knew. There is an answer, but I guess we must keep searching.

If you find it, let me know.

[Southern Federalist]

However, it is only through democracy that radical Islam can be shown to *be* a failure while giving Arab people a way out.

Exactly. No one likes radical Islam less than people who have been governed by it, i.e. the Afghans and the Iranians. There are a whole lot of unhappy people in Saudi Arabia too.

Hamas is no worse for Israel than Fatah. Israel has been isolating the Palis and it won't be easier for Hamas killers to get through the fence than Fatah killers.

As far as I can tell, the Palestinians were voting against Fatah more than they were voting for Hamas. Of course, commitment to terrorism was by no means a disadvantage, but it wasn't Hamas's main draw. People were tired of Fatah's corruption and incompetence.

That means Hamas is now in a position with the Palestinians where they've got to do more than kill Jews and run daycare centers. They're going to be expected to clean up Fatah's mess, and root out corruption, and run efficient social services. And of course they can't do it. I'm sure that being religious fanatics gives them an air of honesty among the yokels, but at bottom they are the same basic thugs as Fatah. Like the mullahs in Iran they are going to start stealing as soon as they get their hands on the till. And when people demand "How are you going to fix the sewage situation in Ramallah?" what are they going to say? "Uh, kill some more Jews?"

And I'm sure the considerable number of secular Palestinians is going to love Hamas's idea of sharia, and lots of people who think they would like it have got a surprise dcoming.

This will help kill off the remaining allure of Islamism in the Middle East, which is already fading. The important thing for the Palestinians is that there be another election down the line so that they can register their opinion of Hamas's rule.

[Fishrrman]

Dark Skies writes:
There is no doubt that islam itself is EVIL...but muslims are the last to know. What do we do? I wish I knew. There is an answer, but I guess we must keep searching.

There _is_ an answer. It is as clear as glass and looms as big as the side of a barn, for all to see.

But it is also so terrible that thinking, caring, reasonable men are unable to see it, or see it and refuse to accept it.

I'll admit upfront that I was never an overtly religious person (one does not need to wear faith on one's sleeve), but the coalescing struggle between Islam and the West (and everyone else, including Buddhism and Hinduism) may become the most monumental conflict in human history.

This has the makings of the Biblical "Armageddon": the ultimate battle between good and evil on this earth. Billions on one side facing off against billions on the other.

As of yet, the West doesn't comprehend the enemy it faces, because the West is used to confronting "enemies" that have the "face" of a nation-state or the dictators of such states. Such enemies are easily dehumanised, and overpowered.

This time, however, the West must defend itself from something more powerful than any one person or state: a totalitarian concept cloaked behind the guise of religion that seeks to conquer the entire earth. This, of course, is Islam.

And precisely for this reason, we of the West - as yet - cannot bring ourselves to consider that a "religion" might be our enemy, indeed, the enemy of EVERYONE who does not already live under the thumb of that religion's cruel grasp.

Thus, we have those in power, who should know better, calling Islam a "religion of peace", when in reality, it is a religion of submission, a religion of the sword.

As it exists, Islam is - and will forever remain - fundamentally incompatible with every precept the West holds dear. No religious freedom. No freedom, period. No equality for women. No tolerance for any dissent. No way out.

There can be no reconciliation, no "reaching of hands" across this gap. For, as Islam teaches, the faithful must deceive the infidels, and then - when the opportunity arises - crush them.

There can be no peace with Islam. Not now. Not ever.

The West has co-existed with the Islamic cancer on the earth for centuries, because - until recently - Islam was so mired in backwardness that it did not have the power to threaten those _in_ the West. That has changed. Islam now has nuclear technology within its grasp (Pakistan), and its "nuclear reach" will soon be extended to Iran. Currently, it appears that we have no intentions of preventing that from happening.

So long as Islam had only the equivalent of pocket knives to our big guns, they posed little threat to us, regardless of how low the pits of their own countries sank. But no more. They now have "the power". It seems only a matter of time before a few trinkets of that power slip into hands less stable than those which now hold the keys to their arsenals.

After the attacks on the World Trade Center and Washington in 2001, Ann Coulter said it best: "invade their countries, kill their leaders, convert them to Christianity". Sounds simplistic, but she had it right. For us, there may be no alternative course.

Islam vs. the West: these two unrequitable concepts cannot co-exist in the modern world. One must triumph over the other. Islam openly touts its goal of world domination. It seeks to destroy us, or convert us into dhimmis. They want to vanquish us, totally, completely, utterly.

In this struggle, one side will win, the other will lose. Totally, completely, utterly.

We are currently on a journey - not one of our own choosing - that will lead to but one end: genocide, on a scale heretofore unthinkable. A bloodbath that will make The Holocaust and World War II resemble a pajama party by comparison.

We are in danger as long as, so long as, Islam survives in the breath of life.

Thinking such thoughts, almost too terrible for a feeling person to contemplate, I must take solace in the fact that the reality we face was not "our choice". Someday, in order to defeat it, our violence against Islam must _exceed_ any level of violence that it would have (certainly would have) perpetrated against us. We must accept this gruesome burden as the cost of freedom, and the price we must pay for the continuance of Western civilization.

As Ronald Reagan said, when asked what he saw as a desirable outcome of the cold war, he replied, "we win, they lose".

I know which side I want to win. And I'm willing to accept what needs to be done in order to achieve that victory.

Do you?

- John

[humint]

Best description I have heard so far! Very dangerous time.

Thank you. I derived it from my work with the Theory of Vibrations and Control Theory. These are two disciplines that employ mathematics to model physical systems. My analogy is conceptual rather than mathematic so you won’t need a calculator. Here’s the background… When a system is modeled with vibration theory, like a spring or pendulum, it is important to know the initial conditions of the system. Pendulums and springs are always subjected to friction or drag and will eventually achieve an equilibrium state over time [t]. A pendulum’s friction comes from its moving through the air and equilibrium is achieved when the pendulum stops moving. I use this analogy because I imagine system equilibrium to be like “peace in society”.

This may or may not make sense to you but conceptually modeling what just happened with Hamas is more like an upside down pendulum. This is a common control theory problem. There is an uncanny similarity between antagonists like Hamas and destabilizing feedback in a control system. Right or wrong, antagonists [like Hamas before it was elected to government] threaten social equilibrium. Clearly Hamas remains a terrorist organization despite transitioning from antagonists to governors within Palestinian society. If a control system’s feedback increases a system’s chaotic behavior the system will fail catastrophically. Imagine a pendulum that doesn’t calm to an equilibrium state but instead swings faster and higher until it no longer behaves like a pendulum. Increasing chaos to the point of catastrophic failure in this analogy is what we are trying to avoid, “war”.

You’re probably wondering why I’ve made my analogy so complicated. It really isn’t. Without coordinated support, upside down pendulums always fail. You know this if you’ve ever tried to balance a pencil on your finger tip. Anyway, this is the analogy that developed my description, “We’ve reached an event horizon in world history.” I’m glad you like it.

We are witnessing the birth of a new set of initial conditions before a war that could still prevent war. Despite the inherent instability and insecurity we feel now, this experience is the product of social and political genius! The free world has offered Palestinians the opportunity to accept or reject peace. This is historic because without their tacit rejection of peace it would be unethical to slaughter them in WWII fashion, in my opinion. What is being done for Palestinians today was not plausible for the Axis powers of WWII. The logic behind democratization is sound whether democracy prevents this looming war or not. Those who made the free and fair elections in Palestine possible are heroes of the highest order. It is right that democracy be pursued by us for our enemies because we know democracy has the potential to mitigate social chaos and prevent the war that looms. Just because the potential of democracy may not be realized in this case does not make democratization efforts wrong. Of course there are other factors…

If Hamas’s initial condition is that it will not recognize its neighbor and our ally Israel as a legitimate country with whom it will deal diplomatically and peacefully, then war is in Hamas’s future. It will be an historic war. It will be a war that spreads to those nations who come to defend Hamas. It will be a war that serves as a lesson to future generations. It will be a war Hamas and their electorate will lose spectacularly. After the war there will be a new set of initial conditions for the nations that lose. Those initial conditions will most likely be the conditions enjoyed by Germany and Japan after World War II. God help our enemies if that’s what they are asking for.

[billbears]

During the 1920s, Japan progressed toward a democratic system of government. However, parliamentary government was not rooted deeply enough to withstand the economic and political pressures of the 1930s, during which military leaders became increasingly influential.

Japan had worked as a limited democracy before WWII contrary to what you or Pipes have to say. This is fact (although I realize facts never matter when trying to spin the Bush doctrine)

[blam]

"Best description I have heard so far! Very dangerous time."

Very dangerous Indeed.
I've lived through the entire Cold War and this seems as troubling if not more so.

How do you deal with rabid dogs that want to die?

[RobbyS]

I agree. The problem is the enormous political pressure the administration is under. The left has been against the war from the beginning and has done everything in its power to encourage the bad guys to continue their resistence. They trade on the impatience of a public that still believes in bringing "the boys" home by Christmas. This even though "the boys" themselves are men who believe in the mission. The Left clearly does not; they wish to go back to the habits of 9/10, end the military effort, and spend defence funds on their pet social projects, In other words, to turn us into another Europe.